Wow...just wow. (Added onboard video link)

[PlasmaBomb]

I would have thought a fine was appropriate since he didn't gain any advantage over Raikkonen (since he crashed out). If it had remained as a Hamilton v Raikkonen battle to the finish, I could see some of their argument. Hamilton didn't gain a significant advantage over Massa, since he had him well beaten...

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
if there's something raikkonen should be penalized for, it's the awkward defensive double-move coming into la source. nico rosberg should be penalized for the unsafe re-entry at turn 12.

I don't think Raikkonen should be penalized for anything. Nor do I think Hamilton should.

My .02

 

[abaez]

Whatever the case, I saw the video of the last few laps this morning and not really being an F1 fan, it was awesome to see them battle.

Is there a channel somewhere online that shows the races?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: abaez
Whatever the case, I saw the video of the last few laps this morning and not really being an F1 fan, it was awesome to see them battle.

Is there a channel somewhere online that shows the races?

Speed TV shows live Friday practice session 2, qualifying live and the races live.

Monza is this weekend, pre-race coverage begins at 4:30AM Pacific time on Sunday.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: abaez
Whatever the case, I saw the video of the last few laps this morning and not really being an F1 fan, it was awesome to see them battle.

Is there a channel somewhere online that shows the races?

there isn't an online video service. whatever you do, do not look for any f1 torrents, especially ones by darmeth.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

it appears mclaren will be successful in lodging an appeal. the early word was this type of penalty wasn't open to appeal. although my gut says hamilton was in the wrong, this certainly should be open to appeal. unfortunately, there has already been one bad rule (safety car / pit closing) upheld this year.

once again, jackie stewart provides the voice of reason
Text
Former triple world champion Sir Jackie Stewart commented: "It's inconceivable that you shouldn't be able to appeal in a situation like this. It could affect the world championship's outcome."

Less surprising is that Stewart, 69, is robustly on McLaren's side, and the Scot has also used the occasion to renew his call for a panel of professional, permanent and highly paid stewards.

"F1 attracts the largest capital investment in sport," he said, "but it's being overseen by people who are not doing it full time and we get inconsistent decisions."

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
it appears mclaren will be successful in lodging an appeal. the early word was this type of penalty wasn't open to appeal. although my gut says hamilton was in the wrong, this certainly should be open to appeal. unfortunately, there has already been one bad rule (safety car / pit closing) upheld this year.

once again, jackie stewart provides the voice of reason
Text
Former triple world champion Sir Jackie Stewart commented: "It's inconceivable that you shouldn't be able to appeal in a situation like this. It could affect the world championship's outcome."

Less surprising is that Stewart, 69, is robustly on McLaren's side, and the Scot has also used the occasion to renew his call for a panel of professional, permanent and highly paid stewards.

"F1 attracts the largest capital investment in sport," he said, "but it's being overseen by people who are not doing it full time and we get inconsistent decisions."

I agree with Jackie Stewart on this.

McLaren boss Ron Dennis revealed to ITV Sport after the race that the team had checked with FIA race director Charlie Whiting that Hamilton had conformed to the rules, which require any advantage gained by short-cutting the course to be promptly rectified.

?Inevitably, we wanted to know whether that was deemed to be a correction so we checked with Charlie," Dennis told Ted Kravitz.

"Of course Charlie can only give an opinion because he's not the stewards, but he gave the opinion that we had complied properly to the regulations.?

In a statement released on Tuesday, Whitmarsh said the team was in fact given two separate assurances that Hamilton had behaved correctly ? and that, had it not been given the thumbs-up, it would have told its driver to let Raikkonen back through.

?From the pit wall, we then asked Race Control to confirm that they were comfortable that Lewis had allowed Kimi to repass, and they confirmed twice that they believed that the position had been given back in a manner that was ?okay?,? said Whitmarsh.

?If Race Control had instead expressed any concern regarding Lewis?s actions at that time, we would have instructed Lewis to allow Kimi to repass for a second time.?

I think McLaren definitely has grounds for appeal on this matter. Glad to see they'll get it.

 

[punjabiplaya]

Again, another instance of when lawyers (stewards) ruin everything.

 

[LTC8K6]

checked with FIA race director Charlie Whiting that Hamilton had conformed to the rules, which require any advantage gained by short-cutting the course to be promptly rectified.

?Inevitably, we wanted to know whether that was deemed to be a correction so we checked with Charlie," Dennis told Ted Kravitz.

"Of course Charlie can only give an opinion because he's not the stewards, but he gave the opinion that we had complied properly to the regulations.?

That makes no sense unless there are other rules I am not able to find. There is no such rule or regulation as far as I can tell.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

i've gone through the 2008 fia f1 technical regulations, 2008 fia f1 sporting regulations, and 2008 fia international sporting code. i've found no mention of anything relating to course-cutting.

http://www.fia.com/sport/Regulations/f1regs.html

are these pdf's different from what officials and teams use? there were some entries marked "DELETED".

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
i've gone through the 2008 fia f1 technical regulations, 2008 fia f1 sporting regulations, and 2008 fia international sporting code. i've found no mention of anything relating to course-cutting.

http://www.fia.com/sport/Regulations/f1regs.html

are these pdf's different from what officials and teams use? there were some entries marked "DELETED".

I think precedence comes into play here and there is a lot of precedence establishing that the driver who gained an advantage could avoid a penalty by giving up the position gained...which Hamilton did. I'm really interested in how this turns out.

 

[Lonyo]

I think the main problem is that he managed to overtake him at the very next corner, which wasn't all that far away from where the incident happened.
If you consider that had Hamilton slowed sufficiently to not have to go off the track, he would likely have been a greater distance behind Raikkonen and probably wouldn't have been able to challenge at the next corner, you can see that Hamilton gained an advantage.

If we ignore the weather conditions (which the Stewards shouldn't necessarily take into acount given that they are very variable and have no set influence, so are hard if not impossible to account for) it does seem like Hamilton did gain by cutting the corner if you consider that the Ferrari is a supposedly faster car (more powerful engine), and Hamilton, despite only having a straight between him and the next corner, was able to be right on Raikkonen again and overtake him without any trouble.
Some of that may be down to the weather and the advantage that the McLaren holds in those conditions, which is arguably where there might be grounds for appeal, and IMO where the problem arises because of the difficulty in judging the situation because of that.

 

[LTC8K6]

Boston Dangler, the regs are cited in the press release and I found them and quoted them earlier. They basically say you can only race on the course. There is no mention of the penalty for racing off the course, and no mention of not getting a penalty if you give the position back.

Cutting a chicane is racing "off the course" and is clearly illegal.

"breaching Article 30.3(a) of the sporting regulations and Appendix L chapter 4 Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code. "


30.3 a) During practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits.

g) The race track alone shall be used by the drivers during the
race.

 

[bruceb]

It seems the main issue is not that he gave the position back, but that he was able to repass the other driver only a few car lengths down the course. By cutting the chicane, he essentially gained TIME on the car ahead of him. If he did not, he would have been further behind in distance
and may not have been able to repass him. I think, if he had slowed down, just a tad, after allowing him to retake the position, that all would have been fine with the race officials.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
I think the main problem is that he managed to overtake him at the very next corner, which wasn't all that far away from where the incident happened.
If you consider that had Hamilton slowed sufficiently to not have to go off the track, he would likely have been a greater distance behind Raikkonen and probably wouldn't have been able to challenge at the next corner, you can see that Hamilton gained an advantage.

If we ignore the weather conditions (which the Stewards shouldn't necessarily take into acount given that they are very variable and have no set influence, so are hard if not impossible to account for) it does seem like Hamilton did gain by cutting the corner if you consider that the Ferrari is a supposedly faster car (more powerful engine), and Hamilton, despite only having a straight between him and the next corner, was able to be right on Raikkonen again and overtake him without any trouble.
Some of that may be down to the weather and the advantage that the McLaren holds in those conditions, which is arguably where there might be grounds for appeal, and IMO where the problem arises because of the difficulty in judging the situation because of that.

Hamilton was gaining on Raikkonen lap after lap since their last pit stop by as much as 5/10ths of a second per lap. The McLaren was definitely faster on the hard tires than the Ferrari.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Boston Dangler, the regs are cited in the press release and I found them and quoted them earlier. They basically say you can only race on the course. There is no mention of the penalty for racing off the course, and no mention of not getting a penalty if you give the position back.

Cutting a chicane is racing "off the course" and is clearly illegal.

"breaching Article 30.3(a) of the sporting regulations and Appendix L chapter 4 Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code. "


30.3 a) During practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits.

g) The race track alone shall be used by the drivers during the
race.

Oh that's bullshit. Half the field raced off the course at the start of the race after they went wide or were forced wide in the first turn. Raikkonen raced in the paved runoff area trying to catch Hamilton not a lap later after this incident occurred and he did catch and pass him again. None of those drivers were penalized.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

ltc8k6, i meant to say there's nothing additonal to what you said in post #2. duh, "i agree" should have sufficed

how is it that a multi-billion dollar international sport relies on part-time amatuers interpreting unwritten rules? nevermind the olympics, and the 2004 world cup where a player got 3 yellow cards in 1 game, this is important, dammit!

 

[LTC8K6]

Oh that's bullshit. Half the field raced off the course at the start of the race after they went wide or were forced wide in the first turn. Raikkonen raced in the paved runoff area trying to catch Hamilton not a lap later after this incident occurred and he did catch and pass him again. None of those drivers were penalized.

Well, I see your point, but those things slow you down and lose you some distance.

Cutting a "chicken" speeds you up.

And, more importantly probably in this case, it gains you distance on the guy in front even if it doesn't allow you to pass him.

 

[Lonyo]

I am a bit confused about the complaints about Ferrari bias to be honest. Not that decisions haven't been favourable to Ferrari, but where this bias comes from.
On the one hand you have Jackie Stewart complaining about the need for a set group of stewards, and on the other you have complaints of bias.

The implication is that the stewards change on a fairly regular basis, which makes me ask, how can the stewards have bias all the time if they keep changing? Surely that means that all the stewards are biased towards ferrari, both those currently serving, and those who have previously served, which seems like a bit of a stretch.
Maybe there would be more consistency if there were full time stewards, but if there was any bias, it's more likely that it would be found in full time stewards than part time/changing ones.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Now with onboard video.

 

[GoatMonkey]

After watching that video, I'll say Lou got the shaft. He was clearly out braking Raikkonen on both corners. The road was wet, maybe he had better tires/downforce/traction, it was pretty obvious to me. Then the Ferrari was just unstable trying to keep up and he lost it. Hamilton was robbed. I hope he wins the championship now.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6

Oh that's bullshit. Half the field raced off the course at the start of the race after they went wide or were forced wide in the first turn. Raikkonen raced in the paved runoff area trying to catch Hamilton not a lap later after this incident occurred and he did catch and pass him again. None of those drivers were penalized.

Well, I see your point, but those things slow you down and lose you some distance.

Cutting a "chicken" speeds you up.

And, more importantly probably in this case, it gains you distance on the guy in front even if it doesn't allow you to pass him.

Actually, they really don't. Watch the video I posted. You'll see Raikkonen go wide on the back of the course onto the paved runoff area and he loses no time and no ground to Hamilton (who also went wide but came immediately back on track).

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: GoatMonkey
After watching that video, I'll say Lou got the shaft. He was clearly out braking Raikkonen on both corners. The road was wet, maybe he had better tires/downforce/traction, it was pretty obvious to me. Then the Ferrari was just unstable trying to keep up and he lost it. Hamilton was robbed. I hope he wins the championship now.

But he'll never have the Top Gear F1 driver top lap.

 

[RiDE]

Originally posted by: bruceb
It seems the main issue is not that he gave the position back, but that he was able to repass the other driver only a few car lengths down the course. By cutting the chicane, he essentially gained TIME on the car ahead of him. If he did not, he would have been further behind in distance
and may not have been able to repass him. I think, if he had slowed down, just a tad, after allowing him to retake the position, that all would have been fine with the race officials.

I agree. But he's a young kid so he goes in with guns blazing. Ironically, that's also why he beached it in China last year which eventually lost him the WDC.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Now with onboard video.

something wrong with my link?